Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 20.01.2022 - 64627/13 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2022,520) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
OKSANICH v. UKRAINE
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - ...
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01
ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2022 - 64627/13
Although it is in the first place for the national authorities (notably the courts) to interpret and apply domestic law, under Article 5 § 1 a failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention, and the Court can and should review whether such law has been complied with (see, among many other references, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 171, ECHR 2004-II). - EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 39496/11
SINKOVA v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2022 - 64627/13
As to the applicant's complaint under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention 38. The Court observes that the applicant's complaint under Article 5 § 5 is similar to those examined by the Court in a number of other cases against Ukraine (see, for example, Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11, §§ 79-84, 27 February 2018). - EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 4494/07
BELOUSOV v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2022 - 64627/13
Regard being had to the documents in its possession, the complexity of the case and the legal aid granted to the applicant in the amount of EUR 850, the Court awards the applicant EUR 650, plus any tax that may be chargeable to him, to be paid into the bank account of Mr M. O. Tarakhkalo, as indicated by the applicant (see, for example, Belousov v. Ukraine, no. 4494/07, §§ 116-17, 7 November 2013). - EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 35231/02
SVERSHOV v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2022 - 64627/13
In the Court's opinion, the domestic courts, by ignoring the above argument, despite the fact that it was specific, pertinent and important, fell short of their obligation under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention to review the lawfulness of the applicant's detention (see, for example, Svershov v. Ukraine, no. 35231/02, § 71, 27 November 2008).